DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (PG Pub 20060046319).
Considering claim 1, Takeda (Figures 10A-10C) teaches a piezoelectric laminate comprising, on a substrate in the following order: a lower electrode (313 + paragraph 0106); and a piezoelectric film (314 + paragraph 0106); wherein a region of the lower electrode, the region being in contact with the piezoelectric film (314 + paragraphs 0106-0107) is constituted of a metal layer, where a (111) plane (paragraph 0106) of the metal layer has an inclination of 1 degree or more with respect to a surface of the substrate and the piezoelectric film contains a perovskite type oxide containing Pb (paragraph 0106).
Considering claim 2, Takeda (Figures 10A-10C) teaches wherein a metal constituting the metal layer is at least one of Ir, Pt (313 + paragraph 0106), Au, Mo, Ta or Al.
Considering claim 7, Takeda (Figures 10A-10C) teaches wherein a piezoelectric element comprising: the piezoelectric laminate and an upper electrode layer (315 + paragraph 0106) provided on the piezoelectric film of the piezoelectric laminate.
Considering claim 8, Takeda (Figures 10A-10C) teaches wherein the upper electrode layer contains a metal or a metal oxide, containing at least one of Ir, Pt (315 + paragraph 0106), Au, Ti, Mo, Ta, Ru or Al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (PG Pub 20060046319) and in view of Kobayashi (PG Pub 20190103550).
Considering claim 5, Takeda teaches the piezoelectric laminate as described above.
However, Takeda does not teach wherein the piezoelectric film has a columnar crystal film structure consisting of a large number of columnar crystals.
Kobayashi (Figure 3) teaches wherein the piezoelectric film (152 + paragraph 0094) has a columnar crystal film structure consisting of a large number of columnar crystals (paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the piezoelectric film has a columnar crystal film structure consisting of a large number of columnar crystals into Takeda’s device for the benefit of enhancing the characteristics of the piezoelectric layer.
Considering claim 6, Kobayashi (Figure 3) teaches wherein a (100) or (001) plane of the columnar crystal has an inclination of 1 degree or more with respect to the surface of the substrate (paragraph 0094).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (PG Pub 20060046319) and in view of Ishimori (PG Pub 20130250007).
Considering claim 3, Takeda teaches the piezoelectric laminate as described above.
However, Takeda does not teach wherein the lower electrode layer includes a first layer that consists of the metal layer and a second layer that is adjacent to the first layer and is provided on a substrate side and the second layer contains at least one of Ti or W as a main component and contains more than 5 at% and less than 50 at% of oxygen or nitrogen.
Ishimori teaches wherein the lower electrode (5 + paragraph 0043) includes a first layer (5a + paragraph 0046) that consists of metal layer and a second layer (5b + paragraph 0046) that is adjacent to the first layer and is provided on a substrate side and the second layer contains at least one of Ti (paragraph 0076) or W as a main component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to include the lower electrode layer includes a first layer that consists of the metal layer and a second layer that is adjacent to the first layer and is provided on a substrate side and the second layer contains at least one of Ti or W as a main component into Takeda’s device for the benefit of using a well-known material as obvious design choice.
However, the combination does not teach contains more than 5 at% and less than 50 at% of oxygen or nitrogen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to contain more than 5 at% and less than 50 at% of oxygen or nitrogen, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 4, Takeda in view of Ishimori teaches wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern for the piezoelectric film, an intensity ratio of a pyrochlore phase to a perovskite phase in the piezoelectric film, which is represented by the following expression, is 2% or less py (222)/{pr(100) + pr (110) + pr (111)} * 100% here, py (222) is a peak intensity of a (222) plane of the pyrochlore phase, pr (100) is a peak intensity of a (100) plane of the perovskite phase, pr (110) is a peak intensity of a (110) plane of the perovskite phase and pr (111) is a peak intensity of a (111) plane of the perovskite phase (the limitation is a goal of the invention + since the structure is taught the limitation is met).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837